The Hammond Flycatcher 
ish. Length about 127 (5.00); wing 71 (2.80); tail 58 (2.29); bill 10.5 (.41); breadth 
of bill at nostril 4.6 (.18); tarsus 16 (.63). Females average a little smaller. 
Remark. —Ridgway recognizes two plumage “phases” of this species, a white- 
bellied and a yellow-bellied; but a series of 66 examples, culled from everywhere, fails to 
support this theory. There is not, in fact, one-quarter as much variation in this regard 
as in the preceding species, E. trailli brewsteri, whose differences Ridgway rightly neglects. 
Recognition Marks. —Warbler size; the smallest of the five California Empi- 
donaces, and possibl}' the most difficult (where all are vexing); olive-gray of plumage 
gives impression of blackish at distance; the most sordid below of the Protean quintette; 
nests high in coniferous trees; eggs white. 
Nesting. —Not certainly known to breed in California. Nest: A neat cup of 
fir-twigs, grasses, and moss, lined with fine grasses, vegetable down, and hair; placed 
on horizontal limb of fir tree at considerable heights. Eggs: 4; pale creamy white, 
unmarked. Av. size 16.5 x 12.7 (.65 x .51). Season: June; one brood. 
General Range. —Western North America. Breeds from southeastern Alaska, 
southern Yukon, and central Alberta, south at least to Oregon and Colorado. Winters 
in Middle America. 
Distribution in California. —After E. griseus , the most elusive and difficult 
of the Empidonaces. Fairly common spring migrant at the lower levels; less common 
during fall migrations, and then chiefly in the mountains. The species certainly does 
not breed in southern California (A. O. U.), and there seems to be no indisputable 
evidence of its breeding anywhere within the limits of the State. 
Authorities.—Xantus ( Tyrannula hammondii), Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 
vol. x., 1858, p. 117 (orig. desc.; type locality, Ft. Tejon); Brewster, Auk, vol. vi., 1889, 
p. 88 (relationship to griseus and obscurus ); Bendire, Life Hist. N. Am. Birds, vol. ii., 
1895, p. 315, pi. 11, fig. 32 (egg); Willett , Pac. Coast Avifauna, no. 7,1912, p. 64 (occurrence 
in s. Calif.); Howell, Pac. Coast Avifauna, no. 12, 1917, p. 66 (Santa Barbara Ids.). 
THE GREATEST confusion still exists in literature regarding the 
habits and distribution of the members of the genus Empidonax. As a 
student of some twenty-five years’ standing, and not unversed in ex¬ 
perience of any of these little “gnat-kings,” the author may, perhaps, 
confess with as good a grace as any, that there are no infallible tests by 
which the western species may be distinguished by the eye alone, out of 
hand. This is not saying that given the appropriate local setting, one 
may not guess right in nearly every instance, even where breeding ranges 
overlap. The notes, too, are fairly distinctive, and would probably 
prove absolutely so if we knew them well enough. But however pro¬ 
ficient one may become in “sensing” the identity of a resident bird, sight 
records of migratory Empidonaces are (save in the case of difficilis) prac¬ 
tically valueless. And there are nine full species of these charming 
enigmas in the United States, with eight more in Mexico. How we 
should love to be shut up with all seventeen at once! 
Hammondii is the western analogue of minimus, the well-known 
Least Flycatcher of the East. It has not, however, achieved any such 
887 
